| 11:00 pm on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I really don't care that much about the count of backlinks, or even my pagerank. As long as my traffic keeps climbing every month, life is good.
Of course I do check my backlinks to my home page, it is impossible to keep track of backlinks to my internal pages, which are most of my incoming links. The link count is up about 120%, but who knows what criteria they are using to come up with that number. The numbers jumped around before all the changes, why should they settle down now.
As for PR, I am more interested in the PR of the sites that I would like to have link to me, than the PR of my own site. I'm at PR6, and will probably make it to PR7 someday, but PR6 to PR7 is a long haul, and I doubt that I will get there till next year, at the earliest. I'll actually start up IE next week and go looking around a little bit to see how the PR is looking. It would be nice if a couple of second level files are up to PR6.
What I am far more concerned with is the number of internal pages that are in the index, and getting the deep links.
More pages = more content = more traffic.
Deep links can easily boost a content page from PR2 to PR4. And a PR4 content page can bring in a lot of traffic on lots of keyword combinations.
As there are only 20 more of my pages in Fritz than there are pre-Fritz, I don't expect to see any real change in traffic.
Freshdeepbot is making the updates a non-issue for me. And judging from how slow this thread is growing, I would guess it is the same for most other people.
| 11:08 pm on Aug 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|And judging from how slow this thread is growing |
Forgot all about that. Bet the mods are rejoicing about it in their secret mod forum. It is kind of nice. :)
| 12:09 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Freshdeepbot is making the updates a non-issue for me |
There was a time when I used to stay up late to see if there was an update. I don't anymore. I just roll with the changes and adapt.
In fact, I'm more concerned about my conversion rate than I am about any update.
More content, more pages, BETTER pages and better conversions is where it's at now for me.
| 12:28 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't think some people appreciate what to look for with backlinks. I've found three pages that have clear errors in the backlinks showing -- two major errors, one minor (just missing one link). And guess what, the two pages with major errors are two of my oddball/problem searches. I've been wondering how the heck I can't be ranked higher for one, or #1 for the other (instead of #2). Well, this explains it completely. If instead of 200 bits of anchor text and passed PR, I'm only getting 12 bits, the oddball rankings make sense.
At the same time, I can look at other sites, for example the one at #1 above me for one of the terms, and see the backlinks there. They show 21 where I'm only showing the 12. All the web shows them with 45 backlinks, and my page with about 200.
So, there is no work for me to do here regarding this search term, except maybe adding a couple links and deleting a couple just to change it around some. Next time hopefully google will not miss this page and I'll move up to #1 for that term.
(edit... backlinks are anchor text, and anchor text is king)
| 12:31 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
SERPs look pretty much unchanged to me..
| 12:36 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So would that tell us that sites have already recieved the value of the links that are coming in, and this is just a reporting of new links, or should one sit tight and watch as that value will be applied over time?
| 1:06 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Welcome back to the update thread GoogleGuy <g>. Its good to see you!
| 1:09 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"SERPs look pretty much unchanged to me.." I've been watching this off an on all day long and they're all over the place. Kind of exciting and disappointing when you see you're at the top of the heap and one hour later fall back to #30 or so. First time I actually paid much attention to it during the creation of a new character---Fritz. Who names these things anyway--or did I miss something?
| 1:23 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I find this confusing.
Google is now showing changed backlinks on some datacenters.
Easy to understand is those pages showing increased backlinks.
What I'm not sure how to interpret is those pages showing reduced backlinks.
Can't that only happen if:
a. Google hasn't found the link.
b. Google has found it but isn't showing it.
For say, PR5 links that showed last week, but don't show this week, Google has clearly found them in the past.
So if you can still see the links, and Google isn't showing them, and they are > PR4, does that mean Google is working from an older dataset?
My head hurts ...
| 1:24 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Competitive search terms may be affected more by freshbot, which is now a larger part of the search returns. Results were flickering around a while ago, but are back pretty much back where they were now. Which maybe due to freshbot results squeezing their way in. Wish GoogleGuy would say here and now if major updates are history or still around for a while yet.
| 1:36 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|So would that tell us that sites have already recieved the value of the links that are coming in, and this is just a reporting of new links |
I'd bet the farm on it.
| 1:52 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What kind of farm do you have? I might be interested in betting. ;)
After dropping to almost no backlinks for my home page after Esmeralda, I'm seeing a return of many of those backlinks when I use "link:www.mysite.com" (on -cw, haven't checked others). Yipee!
I'm also noticing that some of the pages that dropped way down in the serps after Dominic and Esmeralda are rising up again. Maybe coincidence?
I did read googleguy's post about the serps looking pretty much unchanged. Must be that he's looking at different serps than me. :) Or maybe I haven't been following the serps as much as others have and this is just the "normal" fluxing.
| 1:53 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
one of my PR5 sites is now reporting six backlinks. It still shows PR5, and is placed well in the SERP.
I agree it's a problem with the display of backlinks, but the actual searches are taking into account the actual backlink count.
Also for the record, the site I mention had over 100 backlinks, and has been declining steadily all this month. 120, 100, 80, 60, 20, and now 6. :) Before long I'll have a negative number and rank #1 in everything (Hey, I can hope)
| 2:09 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Actually, it's a worm farm bether2, but they work 24/7 for table scraps. :)
If we're in a continuous update, then you continuously improve if you're doing the right thing--sounds like you are.
| 2:15 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I lean toward skipfactor's world view..
| 2:33 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My backlinks don't show DMOZ and Google links (acquired those last month) from PR6 cats (with about 100 links). My index page has PR4 that I believe comes mostly from another niche directory link.
However, when searching I find the Google category and description displayed for my site. What does it mean? Which PR is used to show the results - one considering DMOZ and Google entries or one without?
| 3:42 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing Yahoo as a major factor in this 'update'... one of my sites is a Yahoo partner and I see backlinks increasing from 1,970 to 11,400....most of the backlinks are from Yahoo. On other smaller sites I'm seeing Yahoo backlinks that havent been seen in two months and I'm also seeing Yahoo backlinks from UK and India showing up that are obviously duplicated results from the main Yahoo directory. Perhaps because Yahoo is showing an additional 301,000 backlinks they were crawled extra hard during the last DeepFreshBot and the results are factored in more during this 'update'.
| 8:45 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My SERP results have not changed. I did gain about 54% more blacklinks on my PR6 site. I hope it moves back up to a PR7 for bragging rights! It looks like continuous update is here! I can put up a new site and its in the SERPs within 7-10 days. I like this new continuous thing!
Now all we need is Spell Check For Webmaster World!
| 10:09 am on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|In fact I'm not that worried about reported page rank either these days - just get the right mix of anchor text from 'decent' sites, and let Google worry about the page rank. |
Couldn't agree more. But the update is significant for New sites so that they at least get some visible PR and others start linking to them. ( It clears them of suspicious PR 0 penalties ;) ) As for well established sites this Links and PR update should not matter that much IMHO.
| 12:19 pm on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
yahoo results are currently the -cw results. One of my sites is #1 only on -cw and #8 on all others. Appears that on -cw my pris 4 on all others pr5. Has been like this for 24 hours. Strange how lower pr = higher position.
| 12:53 pm on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Actually, it's a worm farm bether2, but they work 24/7 for table scraps. |
<big chuckle> Guess the bet is off then.
|If we're in a continuous update, then you continuously improve if you're doing the right thing--sounds like you are. |
After taking big hit from Dominic and Esmeralda on both my educational pages and product pages, that's an encouraging note. Especially since googleguy seems to concur. Back to working on content. Fortunately my site is on a topic that I truly love, so working on the content is very satisfying.
| 7:39 pm on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, to say that I'm disappointed in the new SERPS would be an understatement.
For a fairly competitive search term, the number one spot goes to a site that is spamming big time with repeated lines of keywords.
The number two spot ends up on a company TOS page, which has no meaning or relevance to the search term.
The number ten prize goes to a simple "Lost Password" page, which, again, has no meaning for people looking for this search term.
These sorts of results are enough to throw doubt on Google's efficacy as the top search engine on the net. This is just too bad, because Google is a great company, enormously responsive to end users and publishers alike.
What I don't understand is how poor results like these can slip through unheeded...any ideas?
| 7:57 pm on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"What I don't understand is how poor results like these can slip through unheeded...any ideas?"
Because it is all automated. There is no human interference in the SERPs, apart from certain sites being banned, apparently. Google uses a particular algorithm that is tweeked for each update, and that ranks the pages. If the SERPs aren't good, then the algorithm is at fault; there is no "heeding" involved ;-)
|wifi on the fly|
| 10:50 pm on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
All of our results for the keywords and such I watch seem to be very well spam free. No complaints here.
| 11:39 pm on Aug 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Main keyword searches are fairly "spam" free, but localized keyword searches seem to suffer from spam.
| 12:03 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Spam? What is Spam? What do you mean by Spam?
It's funny. Everyone draws a line in the sand, says I am this side of it and the other side is Spam. But no-one knows for sure where Google's line in the sand is anymore ;-). Also, the closer anyone is to #1, it is amazing how much better they feel Google's search results are!
Google's SERPs seem to pretty good at this time (not only could I find my sites early on, but also other stuff I was looking for), but does hidden text, log Spamming, cloaking, gb spamming, etc. still work? Sure it does if you know what you are doing! So I wonder what this says of people that feel there is no spam :-)
A happy (Sun)day to you all from a sunny beach in Phuket, Thailand :-).
BTW If you want to rank really highly in Google, add this new meta tag <META NAME="Googlerank" CONTENT="Hormel"> especially if you are one of my competitors ;-)
|wifi on the fly|
| 12:27 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I was basing spam's definition as "unrelevent" content in the index for search terms.
Enjoy the beach :)
| 11:13 am on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I was basing spam's definition as "unrelevent" content in the index for search terms. |
..... which the webmaster of that site has got there through means which are against googles TOS.
If there are irrelevant results in the SERPS which are sites built in accordance with googles TOS, then it's just google not doing its job properly, not spam.
| 12:23 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
ekkk, my DMOZ info is missing, ekkkkkkk ekkkkkkkkk
| 3:56 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The spam i am seeing, is the same site showing up for 80 of 100 SERPS, using different subdomains of the form city.domain.com all crosslinked
| 4:00 pm on Aug 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>ekkk, my DMOZ info is missing, ekkkkkkk ekkkkkkkkk
>The spam i am seeing, is the same site showing up for 80 of 100 SERPS,
>using different subdomains of the form city.domain.com all crosslinked
Wow, these are really fundamental analyzes. Thanks for sharing!
| This 214 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 214 ( 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 ) > > |